The Democrats Denied The Lord Three Times …

by Marcia

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looked like he wanted to be somewhere else, anywhere else, but on the stage at the Democrat Convention. Villaraigosa’s job was to get delegate agreement on an amendment restoring God, and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to the party platform. Never mind that President Obama had approved the platform as written. That was before the omissions became a political liability and it was necessary to pretend otherwise.

Villaraigosa, looking increasingly uncomfortable, had to call for a vote three times because each time the “nays” sounded just as loud, if not louder, than the “ayes.” Finally, in true Obama fashion, he announced that the desired outcome had occurred. He declared the amendment passed by a 2/3rds voice vote.

Villaraigosa must have remarkable hearing to discern that 2/3rds of the delegates voted in the affirmative. If the point truly were to determine the will of the convention, he would have polled the delegates. That didn’t happen and the effort to paper over the omissions backfired. Instead of the issue becoming a fading blip on the Democrats’ horizon, the spectacle of at least half the delegates loudly rejecting the inclusion of God and the affirmation of Jerusalem is now a national embarrassment. It exposed the President and his political operatives as willing to say anything, do anything, to improve the chances of a win in November.

In a way, it was a profoundly sad moment. The contentious vote revealed that a once proud party has lost its moorings. Captured by radicals in 1968, the party leadership has become ever more alienated from mainstream America and, if the aye voters are an indication, from its own rank and file.

Just how alienated was made clear by the convention motto: “We made it possible.” It was a perfect pairing with Obama’s “You didn’t build that.” Both phrases belittle the individual and laud government. A convention video stated, “Government’s the only thing we all belong to.” Clint Eastwood disputed the contention that we belong to the government in his appearance at the Republican Convention: “Government works for us. Not the other way around,” he said. Eastwood got it right.

Former UN Ambassador and lifelong Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick chronicled the split between the old party and the radicalized one that drove her and fellow centrists out.

“’We’ affirmed the validity of the American dream and the morality of American society. ‘They’ adapted the characterization of intellectuals like Charles Reich [author of the New Age tract The Greening of America] who described the U.S. as a sick society drunk on technology and materialism. ‘We’ rejected the effort to revise American history, making it a dismal tale of dead Indians and double dealing white settlers, imperialism and war. ‘They’ rejected facts and truths we held dear. ‘Their’ extravagant attack on American culture and institutions made ‘us’ progressively aware of our attachment to both. ‘Their’ urgent utopian schemes for reform of almost everything made ‘us’ more aware of our fundamental caution concerning radical reform.”

As the moribund economy precludes singing “Happy Days Are Here Again,” party leaders can neither cite the record of the past four years nor reveal their true intentions. Unable to defend their policies, they divert attention through invective and ad hominem attacks on their opponents. Beyond likening Republicans to Nazis, the attacks on Republican women, on Sarah Palin and her daughter and most recently on Paul Ryan’s wife are, as teenagers like to say, “way gross;” too gross to repeat in a family newspaper or on this blog. The Democrats have succeeded in lowering political discourse to the level of schoolyard taunting.

Remember when Obama called for a “basic level of civility in our public debate?”

He doesn’t.

It all adds up to the Democrats’ second biggest problem. No matter how hard they try, or how many lies they tell, they cannot expunge reality.

Unemployment, reported by the Department of Labor Statistics at 8.1% in Auguest 2012, did not include the underemployed (those in part-time jobs) and those who have given up seeking work. Were those numbers included the figure would be over 14%. Gallup has called the governments reporting of these numbers into question. And the government has responded by suing the polling organization – just coincidentally, of course.

Even Obama partisans know that for many Americans “hope and change” translate into disappointment and despair. No amount of convention rhetoric, appeals to emotion or Clinton spin can conjure up a positive response to the question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

God and the religious concepts relating to the state of Israel should not have any place within politics, especially considering this site is about the founding fathers, people deeply anti-christian. Why do conservatives always bring up something such as the food stamp argument without ever referencing to how America got their in the first place? You can’t just blame Obama and simultaneously glossing over the past 8 years that led up to the monumental mess he inherited – yes I know it’s all to easy to place all the blame on his predecessor, but you can’t make an argument against Obama without acknowledging just how much of a nose dive the American economy made before he took office

Funny, you went straight to Christianity. Laying aside your false assertion that the founders were anti-Christian (not all were Christian, but none were “deeply anti-christian”), the platform refers to the generic God that the founders and most subsequent politicos are comfortable with. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a Creator with a capital ‘C’. They spoke endlessly of Divine Providence and men like Franklin recommended that God be enjoined to help ensure the success of the Constitutional Convention during some of the most heated arguments. Your anti-Christian bias shows through in your comment. The Democrats yielded to political pressure and did not have the strength of character to maintain their true position, forcing a Chicago-style voice vote. They want to have it both ways. Only when called out for pulling God out of the platform did they decide to belatedly amend it. They stand for nothing except political winds.

Having dispensed with God, the Democrats also wanted to make the record clear about their hatred of Israel. Your contention that the platform, the philosophical political document which outlines the beliefs of the Democratic Party, doesn’t get to mention Israel is ridiculous. The platform is not a law, it is a statement describing the beliefs of the party. If the Party wants to go on record expressing this opinion, they should do so. It helps people understand what the party believes in – or doesn’t.

The United States helped to found Israel after the Holocaust. Israel has been a steadfast ally and is a civilized nation state in sea of barbarian states. What better nation to be our ally? At least they share our belief in freedom, unlike the other countries in the region. Where in the middle east are women treated like chattel? Not Israel. Where in the middle east is homosexuality punishable by death? Not Israel. Where in the middle east do so-called “honor killings” happen? Not Israel. Where in the middle east do men mutilate women with barbarous “circumcision?” Not Israel. Where are mobs currently crucifying Christians? Not Israel. Where is their religious freedom and freedom of speech in the middle east? Israel.

Obama does a poor job veiling his hatred of Israel and Britain, a nation instrumental in its founding. His rudeness to Netanyahu and his returning of the Churchill bust were calculated insults.

Instead he has chosen to cozy up to the Muslim Brotherhood wherever possible. His state department even mandated that the marines guarding the Libyan embassy not be allowed to carry live ammunition – with tragic results.

Political relations between nation states has everything to do with politics. Your opening sentence is ludicrous. The platform items in contention were – 1. the acknowledgment of God’s role in the governance of the United States and 2. Recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That’s not a religious thing, that’s a political statement of support for the legitimacy of Israel.

In addition to Martin’s excellent post I would add that your desire to drive religion from the public square reveals an intolerant secularism that would banish religiously informed moral arguments from public debate. As George Weigel so compellingly wrote in the September 10th issue of National Review, when the state acknowledges religious freedom, it acknowledges its own limits. Perhaps that is why the totalitarian impulse is always to restrain, regulate and control religious expression.